hehe.. what's an opinion, a conjecture, a proved truth, and what is pain and whether plants can feel pains, you can just go find a high school science book to check it, i think you really need to. i won't argue with u anymore.

I have never been able to find anything in my old college biology books that stated plants cannot feel negative stimuli can you give me a book title and page number?

hehe.. what's an opinion, a conjecture, a proved truth, and what is pain and whether plants can feel pains, you can just go find a high school science book to check it, i think you really need to. i won't argue with u anymore.

I have never been able to find anything in my old college biology books that stated plants cannot feel negative stimuli can you give me a book title and page number?

Now I don't necessarily believe in right other than the ones we grant ourselves and others. However, through realism

Could we stop suffering animals caused by other animals? Perhaps. But as of the moment, it simply isn't feasible. There will be too much research and money needed.

Humans can stop suffering of animals by getting rid of factory farming, eating more plants, and spreading the word out.

And even though plants may be able to have negative stimuli, you still need to show that they are self aware.

_________________"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN

Animal protection is NOT the most meaningful cause---reducing human population to long term sustainable level is.As far as proof of a soul. People lose a small amount of weight at the time of death, I have heard.In any event, I personally believe everything has a soul to a certain extent, even rocks.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

But as of the moment, it simply isn't feasible. There will be too much research and money needed.

Bullets are pretty cheap. If you kill them, you end suffering, ufortunately the propagation of the species as well.[/quote]

So it wouldn't be good in the long run. So research is how we do it.

Quote:

Quote:

Humans can stop suffering of animals by getting rid of factory farming, eating more plants, and spreading the word out.

You'd limit specific instances of abuse, yes, but you would not significantly impact suffering one way or the other.

Quote:

Quote:

And even though plants may be able to have negative stimuli, you still need to show that they are self aware.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that higher vertebrate stimulus response deserves increased attention.

I just did. You just admit they are higher.

Johhny Electriglide wrote:

Animal protection is NOT the most meaningful cause---reducing human population to long term sustainable level is.As far as proof of a soul. People lose a small amount of weight at the time of death, I have heard.In any event, I personally believe everything has a soul to a certain extent, even rocks.

Humans are animals and our actions impact other animals, so this would be a part of the cause anyways.

_________________"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that higher vertebrate stimulus response deserves increased attention.

I just did. You just admit they are higher.

You've demonstrated it because you got me to admit it? Wow. I hate to break it to you, but I made no such admission and if I did, it demonstrates nothing beyond agreement. You're really grasping for straws here. Why not simply answer the question?

If you don't know who higher vertebrate stimulus response is deserving of increased consideration there's no need to respond.

_________________"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN

cute kills logic. If I told you a vicious killer was causing the extinction of countless species including killing for fun and that there was a cheap way of preventing the rapid growth in the population of this species you might be in favor of killing some of these killers when they are young before they do damage. When I inform you that this method is called "clubbing baby seals" it suddenly seems like a different scenario... but it is not.

My point is to say that "higher stimulus response" makes little difference when you are trying to save animals from suffering. Club some seals, poison stray cats, and please PLEASE get your vasectomy or tubes tied to control the worst blight to the earth ever.

It is too bad you cannot respond rationally to such a simple question.

If you don't know whyhigher vertebrate stimulus response is deserving of increased consideration there's no need to respond

If you want to put yourself in the same level as a plant despite having higher response to your environment, that's your choice.

Ann Vole wrote:

My point is to say that "higher stimulus response" makes little difference when you are trying to save animals from suffering. Club some seals, poison stray cats, and please PLEASE get your vasectomy or tubes tied to control the worst blight to the earth ever.

I think the last 2 don't involve as much suffering as the 1st. Most people use guns to hunt anyways.

_________________"In My view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN

It is too bad you cannot respond rationally to such a simple question.

If you don't know whyhigher vertebrate stimulus response is deserving of increased consideration there's no need to respond

If you want to put yourself in the same level as a plant despite having higher response to your environment, that's your choice.

That is no real answer and the implied basis is flawed.

Why "put yourself in the same level" of ANY response lower than the one you belong? That is the question you cannot seem to answer beyond just an arbitrary desire.

Maybe you can go with the old "animals with faces" are cuter division? How about just warm fuzzy mammals?

Quote:

Ann Vole wrote:

My point is to say that "higher stimulus response" makes little difference when you are trying to save animals from suffering. Club some seals, poison stray cats, and please PLEASE get your vasectomy or tubes tied to control the worst blight to the earth ever.

I think the last 2 don't involve as much suffering as the 1st. Most people use guns to hunt anyways.

You think poison would cause less suffering than a crushing blow to the head? What happens to that "higher function" when the brain is separated from the spinal cord and crushed?

Also, what does using guns have to do with the points made?

You might want to just fall back to a pure emotional point rather than blowing the attempt to set some rational division which is randomly chosen.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein